歐盟也許會改變對專利侵權和專利有效性的審理管轄制度。新擬的制度將會在各會員國初審法庭之間設置一個網路來決定專利相關的議題，且可能對於在EPO申請的歐洲統一專利和分別於歐洲各國專利局申請之專利都適用。初審法院之決定可於設置在倫敦、慕尼黑和巴黎的中央上訴法院系統上訴。此新制度所帶來的主要影響是在於，一旦這些法院有了判決，這些判決將被直接且統一的適用於整個歐洲市場。
早在2012年12月，這個由歐盟推動的法案已被通過，雖然要實現這個制度仍然還有相當多的障礙要克服，譬如批准另一個關於歐洲統一專利的法案，以及將這項制度納入歐洲各國內的法律制度中。在歐盟各國於政治和經濟均正在面對非常重大挑戰的今天，歐盟一些主要國家（尤其是西班牙）正在質疑新的審理管轄制度的正確性，因此，這個制度至今仍無具體實現之期。
然而，對於台灣企業而言，很重要的是，大家必須開始注意這個議題。這個專利審理新制度的主要意義在於產生對整個市場的統合效果，以幫助專利所有權人在整個市場取得最大的利益。這項制度也使得積極的「專利授權公司」（NPEs，Non-Practicing Entities，又稱「非專利實施實體」），其另一個被大家所熟知的名稱就是「專利蟑螂」（Patent –Trolls），擁有更大的權利，來持續他們在美國用這樣無情效率所建立的專利權主張慣行。過去專利授權公司在歐洲是受到限制的，這部分歸因於不同成員國法院對於專利權的行使在法律規定與適用上會有些微的差異。
例如，最近常被世界各地的大企業拿來討論的一個課題就是：新制度是否允許雙元審理（Bifurcation）？雙元審理制度允許由不同的法庭來決定產品是否侵權和專利的有效性，也就是說一個法庭可以逕行判定是否發生專利侵權行為，而不需考慮該專利是否為有效。這乍看起來也許合理，但可能會導致一些很不合理的狀況發生，例如當法院在審理是否侵權的期間內，可能會先對涉嫌侵權產品頒發禁制令，而該專利有效的決定仍未做出（此審理衝突期間被稱為禁制令缺口）。
如此一來，一家被控侵權某專利的公司可能會因遭受禁制令而使其產品無法銷售，然而該專利仍有可能是無效的。因為在雙元審理制度下，專利有效性的審判是在不同的法庭系統審理，且可能會花費蠻長的時間才能確定，導致這禁制令缺口期間可能會是很長的一段時間。另外要注意的是，歐洲專利局審理這些被第三方提出再審查程序的專利有效性的案子時，它的審理速度是很慢的（而且已經有許多積案產生），而這因此被耽擱的時間，可能會對雙元審理制度下的專利有效性部分的審理產生延遲的效果，而對於產品侵權部分的審理僅有較小或甚至沒有影響的，因此這也會擴大了此一禁制令缺口。
德國是以其雙元審理制度而出名的，通常只要有發現產品侵權或者有可能侵權，德國法庭就會允許頒發禁制令，其甚至大方承認法官就是使用禁制令來鼓勵兩造和解。相對的，在英國和荷蘭法庭，原告比較難以如此獲准禁制令（所以就很少會有禁制令缺口的狀況）。實際運作的結果是造成一些公司主要因為法律風險的考量而搬離德國，把他們的總部移到荷蘭，其中微軟公司就是這樣做之最著名可能案例。
根據新的管轄審理制度所訂的程序，仍允許成員國的初審法院進行雙元審理，其第221條規定也給予該初審法院是否頒發禁制令，以及需要多少證據來證明如此的極大裁量權。因此，我們仍無法預防在新的歐盟審理制度下，專利權人透過德國的初審法院來聲請其較易獲准與無視該專利是否有效之禁制令。
讓許多公司嚇壞的是，這項新歐盟管轄審理制度會使在雙元審理制度裡所聲請之禁制令，能得到直接禁制整個歐洲市場的效果。因此這會給專利授權公司一項非常有利的武器，用來對其大量的專利與目標公司進行授權談判，而該等公司則早已經在美國受制於類似狀況且多所抱怨。此時，能夠阻礙這種狀況發生的，只有還未被試驗過的第118(3)條規定，因為其能在禁制令缺口的期間減少如此狀況的發生。
然而，與所有其他在這個新的歐盟司法管轄審理制度下的規定一樣，它將由成員國的法官進行適用與裁量，來決定是否頒發禁制令。因此，專利授權公司總是樂於選擇那些法官公開承認他們偏好頒發禁制令的法庭。在美國司法管轄系統裡，專利授權公司會如此做的證據可在東德州地院發現，這是因為專利授權公司在此已經提起大量的訴訟。因此，對於正在擬議的新歐盟管轄審理制度的批評之一是說，這項新制度並無法促進一個統一的司法管轄審理系統，反而會造成「逛法院」（選擇法庭）的現象，且會造成其審理結果可以強而有力的影響整個歐盟市場。
 |
|
| 作者： |
郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師 |
| 現任： |
北美智權教育訓練處 ／歐洲專利律師 |
| 經歷： |
Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師
Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 歐洲專利局 實習生
英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系，生化碩士
英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院，智財管理碩士 |
|
|
Big Changes Occurring in Europe (Slowly)
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney
The European Union may be moving to a new jurisdictional system to decide on the validity and infringement of patents within the entire European Union. The new jurisdictional system proposed would setup a network of first instance courts within Member States to decide on patent issues for both national patents, and possibly a unitary patent. The decisions would then be appealable to a central appellate system based in London, Munich and Paris. The major effect of the proposed system is that the decision in one of these courts would have a direct and unitary effect on the entire of the EU market.
The legal proposal developed by the European Union had been approved a year ago this month, though there are still quite a few obstacles to overcome before the system becomes a reality. These include approving another legal proposal of the European Union regarding a single unitary patent and introducing the EU legal proposal into national Law by many EU countries. Given that the EU is facing some other very significant challenges on both the political and economic front, and that some major countries (notably Spain) in the Union are challenging the validity of the new jurisdictional system proposed, the project may not yet become a reality.
It is however important for Taiwanese businesses to start becoming aware of the issues involved. The unitary effect of the new system over the entire market was developed in principle to help patent owners make the most out of the patent over the entire market. It will however also empower aggressive NPEs (Non-practicing entities), otherwise known by their more disparaging term of “patent –trolls”, to continue the practice that they already established in the US with such ruthless efficiency. The reason the NPEs’ practice was restrained in Europe until now is due partly to the fragmentation of patent enforcement in different member state courts with application of slightly different Laws.
One example, which has been discussed recently and with much input and considerations from large corporations around the world, is the issue of whether the new system will allow bifurcation or not. Bifurcation is a provision which allows courts to decide on infringement and validity of a patent in separate courts. One court can therefore find a patent is infringed without determining whether that same patent is even valid. This may seem reasonable, but it could lead to the unreasonable situation when one considers that the court deciding on an infringement decision could place an injunction before the validity decision is made (intervening period is called an injunction gap).
A company accused of infringing a patent can therefore be in the position where they are prohibited by an injunction from selling their product on the basis it infringes a patent which may nonetheless be invalid. The injunction gap can be quite a long period because the validity trials in the separate courts of a bifurcated system can take a long time. It should also be noted that the European Patent Office is notoriously slow (and already have a large back-log) in deciding the validity of patents when these are challenged by other parties in an inter-partes proceeding before the EPO; and this delay can have a delaying effect on the validity part of a bifurcated system, while having less/no effect on the infringement side, thus also increasing the injunction gap.
Germany, which is famous for its bifurcated system, usually grant an injunction if there is a finding or likelihood of infringement, even going so far as acknowledging the use of the injunction as an incentive to force settlement. The UK and Dutch Courts, are by comparison much more reluctant to grant such injunctions (and rarely arrive to a situation where there could be an injunction gap). The practical consequence is that some companies are moving away from Germany, to relocate their headquarters in the Netherlands, citing legal concerns as the main reason for the relocation, of which Microsoft is probably the most prominent example.
The Rules of Procedure regarding the new jurisdictional system allow for bifurcation by first instance Member State courts within the system. Rule 221 allow said courts large discretion in allowing injunctions or not and the amount of evidence required to set this out. Hence, there is little to prevent a German system of bifurcation with its incentive towards granting injunctions being applied under the new EU jurisdictional system by a first instance court.
What scares many corporations is that this new jurisdictional system combines propensity of granting injunctions within a bifurcated system with a direct injunctive effect over the entire EU market. It could therefore give NPEs a very powerful weapon in bargaining license agreements for large patent portfolios in a similar manner that the same corporations have already suffered and complained about in the US. At the moment, the only provision preventing this situation from occurring is the untested Rule 118(3), which could mitigate the preventative conditions during the injunction gap.
However, as with all else under this new jurisdictional system, it will be up to the Member State judge’s discretion to decide on whether to apply the injunction or not. And as such, the NPEs may always favour forums where judges acknowledge openly their preference to granting injunctions. Evidence of such a practice by NPEs can be found in the US system by the large number of filings in the Eastern District of Texas. Therefore one of the criticisms of the new jurisdictional system being proposed is that, instead of promoting a unifying jurisdictional system, it is proposing a system for “forum shopping”, where the result could have even more powerful effects across the entire EU market.
|
|
| Author: |
Stefano John, European Patent Attorney |
| Experiences： |
European Patent Attorney, Bryers
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi
Internship, EPO |
|
|
|
